arghya05 wrote:Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs
that enable a family with insufficient savings for a
conventional down payment to be able to move into
new housing and to apply part of the rent to a
purchase later.
(A) programs that enable a family with insufficient
savings for a conventional down payment to be
able to move into new housing and to apply
(B) programs that enable a family with insufficient
savings for a conventional down payment to
move into new housing and to apply
(C)programs; that enables a family with insufficient
savings for a conventional down payment to
move into new housing, to apply

(D) programs, which enables a family with
insufficient savings for a conventional down
payment to move into new housing, applying
(E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient
savings for a conventional down payment to be
able to move into new housing, applying

in d and e applying modifes family instead of rent-to-buy program
is my reasoning correct

lunarpower wrote:

divineacclivity wrote:I have a follow up question.

What is the difference between the following two sentences in terms of modifier sentence modifying noun/action:
Amy made fun of harry, standing on one leg [My understanding: "standing .." modifies action "made fun"]
Amy, standing on one leg, made fun of harry [My understanding: "standing .." modifies noun "Amy"]

If my understanding is correct, what's the difference between the meaning of the two sentences?

what's interesting, here, is that you've basically answered your own question.

as you wrote, in the first sentence, "standing on one leg" describes the whole action that precedes it. if that's the case, then "standing on one leg" is HOW amy is making fun of harry. (maybe his other leg is in a cast ... or something.)

in the second, "standing on one leg" is just talking about amy. so, amy was standing on one leg for an unspecified reason, and also making fun of harry (most likely in a way that had nothing to do with the idea of standing on one leg).

lunarpower wrote:keep in mind that you're looking at *wrong* answers here.

in the two choices (d) and (e), "applying..." shouldn't be a modifier at all, because it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. (number one, the families can move into new housing; number two, the families can apply part of the rent to a later purchase. these are different things.)
so there's really no sense in nitpicking over what it can or can't modify, because it shouldn't be a modifier at all.
[/i]

lunarpower wrote:keep in mind that you're looking at *wrong* answers here.

in the two choices (d) and (e), "applying..." shouldn't be a modifier at all, because it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. (number one, the families can move into new housing; number two, the families can apply part of the rent to a later purchase. these are different things.)
so there's really no sense in nitpicking over what it can or can't modify, because it shouldn't be a modifier at all.

also, bear in mind that there is some flexibility here -- if a comma + -ING modifier follows a complex expression that has more than one subject+verb pair, then you may have to use a certain amount of common sense to distinguish what is modified.
the modifier still must modify the same rules, but could refer to either of the subject/verb combinations.

e.g.
i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat.
here, the comma -ing modifier modifies only the second subject+verb pair. shown in color:
i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat.

VS.
i dropped a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.
here, the comma -ing modifier modifies the entire preceding clause. shown in color:
i dropped a bag (containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks), breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.

lunarpower wrote:

magic monkey wrote:if we change the relative that clause into an comma which clause, would "breaking" still modifies "I dropped a bag", or only the "comma which clause", just grammatically.

Like in the following sentence,
"i dropped a bag containing six incubators, which enclosed baby chicks, breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives."

Have you ever seen this--or anything remotely like it--in an official problem?

If not, it's a non-issue (and thinking about it will have negative returns, in the sense of needlessly over-complicating the concept).

If you have seen this sort of thing in an official problem, then point out where.

lunarpower wrote:In the problem you've cited, the whole issue is a non-issue, because NO modifier makes sense.

In that context, "applying... is something that happens later. It's not something that happens in the same timeframe as "moving in", and it is most certainly not a description of the move-in process.
So, the use of any modifier would be nonsense in this context.

Again, it's very, very unlikely that anything like this will ever appear on the test--and, even if it does appear, it will almost certainly never be an actual dispositive issue (just as it isn't here).

This comment will surprise a lot of people (and may even destroy some people's cherished conceptions of what this exam is and isn't)--but GMAC is not in the business of trying to "trick" you with weird, convoluted, esoteric versions of single issues.
When there is complexity, that compelxity comes from the combination of many simpler concepts in a larger sentence. But, the thing you should never forget is that the simpler concepts will remain simpler concepts.

lunarpower wrote:

magic monkey wrote:So is it correct to say that GMAT would most likely to avoid structures like "SVO, which clause, doing"?

Too abstract for me. Can you write an actual example that looks like this? Thanks.